Geez, this is weak...
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
He had a chance to do the same...
and didn't.
A much more severe gas attack occurred well AFTER Obama's ballyhooed red line speech. In addition, you have the added sauce of Susan Rice and John Kerry assuring everyone that Syria's gas weaponry had been removed.
and didn't.
A much more severe gas attack occurred well AFTER Obama's ballyhooed red line speech. In addition, you have the added sauce of Susan Rice and John Kerry assuring everyone that Syria's gas weaponry had been removed.
Which doesn't address my statement in any shape, way, manner, or form.
Sounds like you concluded they first claim that he would have done the same thing was bogus and didn't bother to actually read the rest of the article at which my comment was directed.
Your comment doesn't address my INITIAL point (granted, not explicitly stated, but it's my thread) which is that it is ex-post-fact o BS by a typical weak stick full of shit Obama apologist to say this, because the facts are, Obama DIDN'T do it.
It's a statement that can't ever be proved, nothing but speculation trying to give Obama a spine he never had.
The other liberal theme this weekend and today is since Trump has taken the handcuffs of micro management off the military, they get all the credit, Trump none, because he doesn't even know what they are going to do before they do it.
The other liberal theme this weekend and today is since Trump has taken the handcuffs of micro management off the military, they get all the credit, Trump none, because he doesn't even know what they are going to do before they do it.
Last edited:
Actually, I completely addressed your point...explicit or not.
You posted "this is weak" and then a link to an article. That's it. That's all.
The article has two main contentions....that former aides said Obama would have done the same thing AND that if he had, what the response would be.
I said I don't know about the accuracy of the first one, but believed the second to be spot on.
I get it....you're focused on a President that is no longer in office and don't want to talk about the partisan responses and actions of people still in office....even though both were discussed in the link you posted.
I'm good with that....just so we are clear. Seems a little "weak" to me though.
Last edited:
Recently I've been agreeing with JD quite a bit. Don't know if I need to be worried for myself, or if JD needs to see a doc.
However in this one I have to disagree with his position. Obama would have shot one cruise missile (if he had to) into Syria at a rock in the middle of the desert to make sure he minimized collateral damage to other rocks. He then would have pronounced the strike a huge success. Being Obama he wouldn't tell you that what he mean by the word success was that he successfully managed to find a trigger on his own, and only reason he shot the rock in the first place was because it said on the side GW Bush is awesome.
Lets face it. Obama used Bush's plan to kill OBL. His war in Libya wasn't even his it was Hillary's. At this point in hindsight I think we can all agree Obama was a very weak president when it came to having to pull the trigger himself. It is safe to say we most likely wouldn't have even needed the second part of that piece as Obama most likely wouldn't have done anything in the first place. He already balked on that pitch and wasn't going to get anymore more egg on his face from doing nothing.
Well that should balance me up with JD for the moment, but with the way this board has been going lately I have a felling I will be agreeing the JD a lot more as we go along. I already have in this thread as I agree with JD that Obama is old news, and moving on is the best thing to do.
However in this one I have to disagree with his position. Obama would have shot one cruise missile (if he had to) into Syria at a rock in the middle of the desert to make sure he minimized collateral damage to other rocks. He then would have pronounced the strike a huge success. Being Obama he wouldn't tell you that what he mean by the word success was that he successfully managed to find a trigger on his own, and only reason he shot the rock in the first place was because it said on the side GW Bush is awesome.
Lets face it. Obama used Bush's plan to kill OBL. His war in Libya wasn't even his it was Hillary's. At this point in hindsight I think we can all agree Obama was a very weak president when it came to having to pull the trigger himself. It is safe to say we most likely wouldn't have even needed the second part of that piece as Obama most likely wouldn't have done anything in the first place. He already balked on that pitch and wasn't going to get anymore more egg on his face from doing nothing.
Well that should balance me up with JD for the moment, but with the way this board has been going lately I have a felling I will be agreeing the JD a lot more as we go along. I already have in this thread as I agree with JD that Obama is old news, and moving on is the best thing to do.
I'm didn't say one way or the other what Obama would or wouldn't have done...I said I don't know.
I feel pretty confident that if Obama had done the same thing as Trump, the reaction hypothesized in that article is the most likely result.
They're both speculation. I'm just wondering why some only want to engage in speculation on a single half of the equation.
and I don't give two flying ****s what the reaction to a hypothetical THAT DID NOT OCCUR after Syria crossed "the red line" by a huge margin might have been.
I get it. All you care about is the hypothetical of whether or not Obama would have done the same thing....not what the hypothetical reaction to your speculative conclusion would be.
You're focused on someone that is no longer in office and don't want to discuss what people that are actually still in office might have done.
I get that. No need to go all capital letters on us.
It's an interesting what if. So what can you say would have happened?
You would have thought every media member outside of Hanity and Coulter where sending Valentines to the WH and was he dating all of them.
I think you are under estimating the soft Conservative middle to support any kind of military action. There would not have been as much backlash as you may think. It would have set Hill up better in the election as well. This was a major foreign policy blunder by the Obama WH. I think they were afraid of the left backlash more than the right but the media lapse dogs would righted that train.
No. I don't have to rely upon any hypothetical. I have NO speculative conclusion, only you and Zakaria do. I'm "focused" only on the utter ludicrousness of Fareed Zakaria trying to latch on to the seeming popularity of Trump's forceful move again Syria to curry approval for his man crush. Your statement is utterly ridiculous.I get it. All you care about is the hypothetical of whether or not Obama would have done the same thing....not what the hypothetical reaction to your speculative conclusion would be.
You're focused on someone that is no longer in office and don't want to discuss what people that are actually still in office might have done.
I get that. No need to go all capital letters on us.
Obama did NOTHING when Hassad gassed >1,000 people after he had laid down his red line.
Capital letters and underlining and bolding....the triple threat of super cereal.
Lol.
Your speculation = a certainty.
Other speculation = utterly ridiculous.
High opinion of yourself.
Good talk.
Last edited:
Similar threads
